Well, see microsoft doesn't care about any of that there or whatever you want to say. Best player for windows is obviously windows media player!
Best player for the mac is obviously windows media player! except for that horribly slow, completely unable to scrub through videos, and it only makes the WMV3 codec available to itself... those are good features, right?
(i'm sick of not being able to trash wmp and run with mplayer alone)
I admit I might have read too much into your post, but the fact remains that the book is a physical medium, the words are still copyright-protected intellectual property and you don't have the right to do anything with them without permission.
Software -- physical media = disc, copyright-protected IP = contents of said disc.
They're exactly the same. Printed ennumerated license or not.
Destroy (set fire to it, write on it, if you can get your disc drive to read it backwards, do that with it, whatever) or resell the media all you want, the contents remain not yours just the same.
I also feel it necessary to add that the only reason I bothered to retype all this is because of that last sentence you added. Yeah, fine, this isn't meant for you, but there are people spouting off everywhere who don't seem to understand anything; your post just came as a convenient flagpole. Sorry, or something.
You're missing out on an important analog here:
Yes, you purchased the book.
No, you do not have the right to do what you will with its contents. The copyright holder (in this case, probably the publisher) still gets to tell you what you can and can't do with your precious printed word.
This is why we have plagiarism; because the party with the right to control copy gets to control copying of its intellectual property.
This is exactly the same as buying a computer and being able to do what you will with it. Yes, you can hit the computer with a brick. You can sell it and its contents to another person. But you can not spindle, fold, mutilate, or otherwise break the agreement you entered into with regard to the software.
The only difference between computer software and a copy of a book is that there's a piece of paper that has to explain what copyright law means as applied to software because people apparently don't believe that illegally copying/distributing/using software is the same as illegaly copying/distributing/using written literature.
What's more interesting than any of this... what do you all think would happen if Apple took steps to combat this in the future? What if they added to each developer seed a watermark file somewhere that could be found, evaluated, and traced to the employee or tester that leaked it?
Oh god, I can see the discussion now...
"NOW APPLE IS PROSECUTING THEIR USERS BY FORCING DEVELOPERS AND EMPLOYEES TO SUBMIT TO DIGITAL WATERMARKING TO PROTECT THEIR PRODUCT! OH HOLY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN THIS $REFERENCETOPOSTAPOCALYPTICSCENARIO SOCIETY! HAVE THEY NO HEART? I REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS WHEN $CEO WAS IN CHARGE"
People need to shut the hell up about this. There's a clear difference to anyone willing to sit down and rationalize for a moment between violated NDAs on an upcoming product and, for argument's sake, someone who broke an NDA because they felt morally obligated to inform the public that whatever they were working on raped babies while pirating DVDs.
In Maryland (god bless its backward Common Law nature), county police handle arrests and law enforcement, while the sheriffs run the jails and execute and serve warrants. In his case, he would have been arrested by the county police or state troopers, but the sheriffs rarely if ever arrest people.
Given that I am but one man, I can't speak for everyone when I say that the reason I don't listen to the radio is that I hate talking. I hate hearing Mickey and Amelia gab on for four hours on a station called 98 rock when I expect the latest and greatest in crappy Linkin Park collaborations to make fun of with my friends later. There's one FM station that I'd listen to around here, and it's notorious for playing its non stop classic rock blocks and then a rousing round of non stop sell-a-thon that will last upwards of 10 minutes.
I just don't want to hear it. I want music, that's why I bought a music player.
Ironically enough, I would actually buy a portable AM device because the one radio station I ever do want to listen to is a straight news/traffic/weather broadcast. So I guess there is that. But music is for music.
I suspect the reason most players seem to be free from FM is twofold: crappy reception concerns, although that seems highly unlikely, and, far more pressing, the fact that most people must not care. I have an iFP 380T and I *never* use the FM feature. I spend all my time transcoding music to 64kbps/mono to get it to sound decent and be able to hold enough that I'm not going to waste my time listening to what I didn't want on the thing in the first place. I'd bet there are a lot more like me, too.
Put something on your tray table sometime, preferably with either an extended hinge (think like your laptop's screen) or a liquid element (think like your cup of ice water) and watch it when you go through turbulence or whatever.
Don't think that, since what you're looking at isn't moving relative to your frame of reference, it isn't experiencing external forces anyway. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to sit down and belt up when we hit unstable air.
You're largely right in saying that DRM doesn't work, but for someone like me, DRM is truly transparent and doesn't matter one whit. Let's say I buy an album (something I have done once, because I wanted the Team America soundtrack but didn't want to pay 15 dollars for it and a bunch of crap I knew I would never look at). As one person who has never engaged in sharing music or giving music away or selling my CDs, I am just fine with this. For ten dollars, the price of one CD-R, and the ink out of a sharpie marker to write "team america OMG I STOLE MUSIC CAUSE ITS ON A CDR AND I LISTEN TO IT???!" I have a perfectly good CD that works in my car. It's also on the two computers I own. It works just fine, just the way I want.
Perhaps the problem isn't in the DRM, it's reconciling DRM with an outdated set of views on what purchased music is for.
Either that, or everyone needs to stop buying music they're going to get sick of.
Slashdot Mirror
best player win, eh
Well, see microsoft doesn't care about any of that there or whatever you want to say. Best player for windows is obviously windows media player!
Best player for the mac is obviously windows media player! except for that horribly slow, completely unable to scrub through videos, and it only makes the WMV3 codec available to itself... those are good features, right?
(i'm sick of not being able to trash wmp and run with mplayer alone)
I don't think it is.
I admit I might have read too much into your post, but the fact remains that the book is a physical medium, the words are still copyright-protected intellectual property and you don't have the right to do anything with them without permission.
Software -- physical media = disc, copyright-protected IP = contents of said disc.
They're exactly the same. Printed ennumerated license or not.
Destroy (set fire to it, write on it, if you can get your disc drive to read it backwards, do that with it, whatever) or resell the media all you want, the contents remain not yours just the same.
I also feel it necessary to add that the only reason I bothered to retype all this is because of that last sentence you added. Yeah, fine, this isn't meant for you, but there are people spouting off everywhere who don't seem to understand anything; your post just came as a convenient flagpole. Sorry, or something.
You're missing out on an important analog here: Yes, you purchased the book. No, you do not have the right to do what you will with its contents. The copyright holder (in this case, probably the publisher) still gets to tell you what you can and can't do with your precious printed word. This is why we have plagiarism; because the party with the right to control copy gets to control copying of its intellectual property. This is exactly the same as buying a computer and being able to do what you will with it. Yes, you can hit the computer with a brick. You can sell it and its contents to another person. But you can not spindle, fold, mutilate, or otherwise break the agreement you entered into with regard to the software. The only difference between computer software and a copy of a book is that there's a piece of paper that has to explain what copyright law means as applied to software because people apparently don't believe that illegally copying/distributing/using software is the same as illegaly copying/distributing/using written literature.
What's more interesting than any of this... what do you all think would happen if Apple took steps to combat this in the future? What if they added to each developer seed a watermark file somewhere that could be found, evaluated, and traced to the employee or tester that leaked it?
Oh god, I can see the discussion now...
"NOW APPLE IS PROSECUTING THEIR USERS BY FORCING DEVELOPERS AND EMPLOYEES TO SUBMIT TO DIGITAL WATERMARKING TO PROTECT THEIR PRODUCT! OH HOLY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN THIS $REFERENCETOPOSTAPOCALYPTICSCENARIO SOCIETY! HAVE THEY NO HEART? I REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS WHEN $CEO WAS IN CHARGE"
People need to shut the hell up about this. There's a clear difference to anyone willing to sit down and rationalize for a moment between violated NDAs on an upcoming product and, for argument's sake, someone who broke an NDA because they felt morally obligated to inform the public that whatever they were working on raped babies while pirating DVDs.
In Maryland (god bless its backward Common Law nature), county police handle arrests and law enforcement, while the sheriffs run the jails and execute and serve warrants. In his case, he would have been arrested by the county police or state troopers, but the sheriffs rarely if ever arrest people.
Given that I am but one man, I can't speak for everyone when I say that the reason I don't listen to the radio is that I hate talking. I hate hearing Mickey and Amelia gab on for four hours on a station called 98 rock when I expect the latest and greatest in crappy Linkin Park collaborations to make fun of with my friends later. There's one FM station that I'd listen to around here, and it's notorious for playing its non stop classic rock blocks and then a rousing round of non stop sell-a-thon that will last upwards of 10 minutes. I just don't want to hear it. I want music, that's why I bought a music player. Ironically enough, I would actually buy a portable AM device because the one radio station I ever do want to listen to is a straight news/traffic/weather broadcast. So I guess there is that. But music is for music.
I suspect the reason most players seem to be free from FM is twofold: crappy reception concerns, although that seems highly unlikely, and, far more pressing, the fact that most people must not care. I have an iFP 380T and I *never* use the FM feature. I spend all my time transcoding music to 64kbps/mono to get it to sound decent and be able to hold enough that I'm not going to waste my time listening to what I didn't want on the thing in the first place. I'd bet there are a lot more like me, too.
Put something on your tray table sometime, preferably with either an extended hinge (think like your laptop's screen) or a liquid element (think like your cup of ice water) and watch it when you go through turbulence or whatever. Don't think that, since what you're looking at isn't moving relative to your frame of reference, it isn't experiencing external forces anyway. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't need to sit down and belt up when we hit unstable air.
You're largely right in saying that DRM doesn't work, but for someone like me, DRM is truly transparent and doesn't matter one whit. Let's say I buy an album (something I have done once, because I wanted the Team America soundtrack but didn't want to pay 15 dollars for it and a bunch of crap I knew I would never look at). As one person who has never engaged in sharing music or giving music away or selling my CDs, I am just fine with this. For ten dollars, the price of one CD-R, and the ink out of a sharpie marker to write "team america OMG I STOLE MUSIC CAUSE ITS ON A CDR AND I LISTEN TO IT???!" I have a perfectly good CD that works in my car. It's also on the two computers I own. It works just fine, just the way I want. Perhaps the problem isn't in the DRM, it's reconciling DRM with an outdated set of views on what purchased music is for. Either that, or everyone needs to stop buying music they're going to get sick of.